"Yes but it is custom. People are inventing structured scopes like
"aud:https://foo.com";, and that potentially doesn't solve the security issue if
a client just passes on the scopes it receives in the error response, the bad
RS just adds a scope for the good RS."
This isn't solved by "aud", it is solved by OAuth 1.0a though....
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:54 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
Yes but it is custom. People are inventing structured scopes like
"aud:https://foo.com";, and that potentially doesn't solve the security issue if
a client just passes on the scopes it receives in the error response, the bad
RS just adds a scope for the good RS.
The client then potentially needs to understand the custom structures scopes of
every AS it might deal with.
I think that would lead to lots of problems trying to make that a pattern long
term. At teh moment yes you can do it with a scope as long as the client and
AS both understand what is going on.
We added "aud" as a separate parameter for PoP as the token format for
different RS might be different as well as the symmetric pop keys needing to
be encrypted with different keys.Yes we could have invented a special scope to
carry the audience but a separate parameter was much cleaner.
I know some people have started using "aud" as a way to communicate the
resource when a scope applies to multiple RS but they may take different token
formats JWT vs opaque etc.
Brian commented that the "aud" parameter may be useful beyond PoP so we might
want to think about documenting it in it's own mini spec, if I understood him
correctly.
I think that may not be a bad idea as we are also planning on using it in NAPPS.
John B.
On Mar 17, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Bill Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't think it's "overloading scope names" to use them that way. The aud
value(s) could as easily be carried in scope as anywhere. Nothing says a scope
can't be "https://foo.com";, and that Foo.com requires that scope to be present
for a token to be accepted. I would not make it foo.com-read-mail for example.
If it's more convenient to put it in aud I can accept that, but it's the same
functionality and can be implemented in scopes now.
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:41 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com>
wrote:
People have been overloading scope names to create implicit audience.
The problem is that clients need to know via some magic method that you need to
ask for scope "purple" to get write access to RS 2.
Having an explicit "aud" parameter gives clients a way to communicate to the AS
what RS they are asking for a token for.
the security issue is that if a client discovers a API out via some out of band
mechanism the OAuth error code can tell the client go to AS X and ask for Scope
Y.
Unfortunately without POP tokens or at-least passing the URI of the RS to the
AS via "aud", a bad RS could get a legitimate client to give it a token that
can be replayed at a legitimate RS.
This was one of the issues that Eran Hammer-Lahav was particularly concerned
about.
I think I proposed a "aud" parameter to the token endpoint back then as a
alternative to requiring HMAC tokens, but that got lost in the confusion at the
time.
At that time though people were not yet thinking about interoperable OAuth API,
only relatively tightly bound clients that were preconfigured for the API
endpoints they were using.
In Health and other places we are starting to see standard clients that
discover API endpoints and configure themselves based on a users Identity to
use a arbitrary OAuth AS, moving into federation of AT.
That is one of the reasons POP will be important, as it prevents RS from
misusing federated tokens by presenting them at other RS.
The simplest thing to do is have the client say what RS it is trying to access
explicitly (The "aud" parameter), and including an audience in the AT. to
protect against malicious RS.
PoP is the step up that also protects against tokens being intercepted and
replayed by another client.
John B.
On Mar 17, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Bill Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This may have been hashed out already and I missed it, but "aud" just becomes
another kind of scope, correct?
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 8:50 AM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
You could do that, but it is probably safer for the AS to know what RS it can
issue tokens for and refuse to issue a token for RS A to a client asking for a
token with RS X as the aud.
John B.
On Mar 16, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Dixie Baker <dixie.ba...@martin-blanck.com> wrote:
The threat that RFC6819 4.6.4 describes is when a client obtains an AT and then
sends it to a counterfeit RS, which then uses the AT to access resources from a
legitimate RS, on the end-user's behalf.
The suggested countermeasure is a bit difficult to interpret: "Associate the
endpoint URL of the resource server the client talked to with the access token
(e.g., in an audience field) and validate the association at a legitimate
resource server. The endpoint URL validation policy may be strict (exact
match) or more relaxed (e.g., same host). This would require telling the
authorization server about the resource server endpoint URL in the
authorization process."
As I read this, the suggestion is to have the client pass the URL of the bad RS
in the request to the AS (using the audience field). The AS then would include
that RS URL in the AT. Then, when the client passes the AT to the bad RS, and
it passes it on to the good RS, the good RS will check the audience field,
compare that URL with its own, and refuse the request.
-Dixie
Dixie B. Baker, Ph.D.
Senior Partner
Martin, Blanck and Associates
Office (Redondo Beach, CA): 310-791-9671
Mobile: 310-279-2579
On Mar 16, 2015, at 11:39 AM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
Brian and I were talking about "aud" used as a parameter to the token endpoint
when using a code or refresh token to indicate what RS the resulting AT will be
used at.
Sending a audience in the AT wouldn't help prevent the attack being discussed,
though it may stop other sorts of attacks if the RS can tell if a AT was issued
for it or another RS.
In PoP having the AS check that you are sending the AT to the correct RS is
less important as the AT if stolen can't be used to replay against the real AS.
Though depending on the app the bogus RS feeding the app the wrong info may
well be a problem as well.
John B.
On Mar 16, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net>
wrote:
I don't think putting an aud into an AT will help to prevent counterfeit RSs
(as long as the aud is nit directly derived from the original URL used by the
client to invoke the counterfeit RS. as long as the aud is a symbolic name of
any kind, the counterfeit RS will accept ATs for the legitimate RS and just
(ab)use it.
POP on the contrary helps since the counterfeit RS, in order to send a message
to the legitimate RS, needs to produce a new digitally signed message using the
correct secret, which it doesn't know.
kind regards,Torsten.
Am 16.03.2015 um 17:40 schrieb Dixie Baker <dixie.ba...@martin-blanck.com>:
Using the "aud" parameter makes sense to me. Good suggestion.
Authenticating the client to the RS would not address the counterfeit RS
threat.
-Dixie
Dixie B. Baker, Ph.D.
Senior Partner
Martin, Blanck and Associates
Office (Redondo Beach, CA): 310-791-9671
Mobile: 310-279-2579
On Mar 16, 2015, at 6:43 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
We've used "aud" (optionally) with OAuth 2 and bearer tokens to help identify
the RS to whom the AT should be issued. It is useful but it's mostly about
getting format/content/etc of the AT correct for the RS rather than it is about
preventing possible AT leaks.
I do think an "aud(iance)" parameter at both token and authorization endpoints
would have utility beyond the POP work. So defining it independently might make
sense.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:34 AM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
In POP key distribution we do introduce a "audiance" parameter to the
token_endpoint.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution-01#section-3.1
It would be possible to have a small spec to define using "aud" with bearer
tokens, however that would be undefined behaviour at this point.
I don't know of any clients that would try to access a RS server and then besed
on the error response try and get a access token from the AS specified in the
error.
In POP we are trying to both protect agains that attack and more common ones
like doing a MiM to intercept the AT or the RS being hacked and leaking the
token.
Using "aud" with bearer tokens would be useful, but probably won't stop the
majority of possible AT leaks.
John B.
On Mar 15, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net>
wrote:
Hi Josh,
I'm not aware of a common practice to use such a parameter. The WG is instead
heading towards authenticated requests to the resource server (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6819#section-5.4.2).
Please take a look onto
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture and further drafts
on this topic.
kind regards,
Torsten.
Am 03.03.2015 um 18:27 schrieb Josh Mandel:
Hi All,
In section 4.6.4 ("Threat: Access Token Phishing by Counterfeit Resource
Server"), RFC6819 describes a threat where a counterfeit resource server tricks
a client into obtaining and sharing an access token from a legitimate
authorization server. One of the proposed mitigations involves: "telling the
authorization server about the resource server endpoint URL in the
authorization process."
In other words, this mitigation would ask the client to pass an additional
parameter when redirecting to the Authorization server's "authorize" URL,
effectively something like:
https://auth-server/authorize? response_type=code& client_id=123& state=456&
scope=read-all& redirect_uri=https://app-server/after-auth&;
resource_server_that_told_me_to_authorize_here=https://attacker.com
(And if the authorization server saw a value it didn't like in the final
parameter, it would reject the request.)
This is obviously not appropriate in every authorization scenario, but it is
useful anytime there's a discovery process by which apps learn about
authorization servers from resource servers. Since it's something of a common
need, I wanted to see if there was any common practice in how to name this
parameter, or whether it's worth registering a standard extension at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml . (I
don't see one there now -- possibly I'm just missing it.)
If so, what should it be called? The name I used in the example above is a
bit verbose :-)
Best,
Josh
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
